Cassidy Hutchinson might turn out to be the next John Dean

[LetMyPeopleVote]

I am looking forward to the hearings next week. The Jan. 6 committee has the testimony of a number of staffers who were in the room where it happened and their testimony could be as powerful as Dean's testimony.

Link to tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/04/jan-6-committee-set-make-its-case-public-with-prime-time-hearing/

Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, has sat for multiple depositions with investigators — more than 20 hours — and is expected to play a starring role in the hearings, according to people familiar with the matter. Hutchinson, people familiar with the committee said, has provided extensive information about Meadows’s activities in trying to overturn the election......

The Washington Post reported late last month that Hutchinson had told the committee that Meadows remarked to others that Trump indicated support for hanging his vice president after rioters who stormed the Capitol on that day started chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!”

“Cassidy Hutchinson might turn out to be the next John Dean,” Eisen added, referring to the former presidential counsel who accused President Richard M. Nixon of having direct involvement in the Watergate scandal to Senate investigators and federal prosecutors.

Hutchinson is likely to testify live before the committee, complemented by video footage of previous interviews before investigators, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

The Jan. 6 committee does not need Meadow's testimony directly when his top aide and others can testify

I am also looking forward to Michael Luttig's testimony. Luttig is former judge and is well respected

The Washington Post reported late last month that Hutchinson had told the committee that Meadows remarked to others that Trump indicated support for hanging his vice president after rioters who stormed the Capitol on that day started chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!”

“Cassidy Hutchinson might turn out to be the next John Dean,” Eisen added, referring to the former presidential counsel who accused President Richard M. Nixon of having direct involvement in the Watergate scandal to Senate investigators and federal prosecutors.

Hutchinson is likely to testify live before the committee, complemented by video footage of previous interviews before investigators, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Meadows burned papers after meeting with Scott Perry, Jan. 6 panel told

I still believe that Meadows was not indicted for contempt of Congress because the DOJ has other plans for Meadows. Destruction of ev evidence shows knowledge of guilt and intent. Cassidy Hutchinson was a witness to Meadow's destruction of evidence

Link to tweet

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/26/meadows-burned-papers-meeting-scott-perry-00035411

Then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows burned papers in his office after meeting with a House Republican who was working to challenge the 2020 election, according to testimony the Jan. 6 select committee has heard from one of his former aides.

Cassidy Hutchinson, who worked under Meadows when he was former President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, told the panel investigating the Capitol attack that she saw Meadows incinerate documents after a meeting in his office with Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.). A person familiar with the testimony described it on condition of anonymity.

The Meadows-Perry meeting came in the weeks after Election Day 2020, as Trump and his allies searched for ways to reverse the election results.

It’s unclear whether Hutchinson told the committee which specific papers were burnt, and if federal records laws required the materials’ preservation. Meadows’ destruction of papers is a key focus for the select committee, and the person familiar with the testimony said investigators pressed Hutchinson for details about the issue for more than 90 minutes during a recent deposition.

[2naSalit]

5. +1

[madashelltoo]

9. +1

[yellowdogintexas]

18. +3 nt

[question everything]

39. This is what Christie said:

https://democraticunderground.com/100216765583

[rsdsharp]

2. Bear in mind that most people didn't believe Dean until the tapes came out

and proved that his testimony was a virtual recitation of what had occurred.

There ain’t no tapes this time, half the country won’t watch, and anything they do hear, they will deem fake news.

[Kingofalldems]

3. Oh really?

Should we give up and cancel the hearings?

[rsdsharp]

14. Pick a fight with somebody else.

[Kingofalldems]

21. Simple question.

Should we just cancel the hearings?

Waiting.

[rsdsharp]

26. No. I. Would. Not. Cancel. The. Hearings.

But. Don’t. Expect. Them. To. Change. Any. Minds.

Satisfied?

[bigtree]

32. expect. them. to. change. minds.

...we've never seen anything like this.

[PJMcK]

38. Respectfully, your first response was needlessly aggressive

rsdsharp was expressing their skepticism that anything meaningful will come from the televised hearings. Given many of the events these past couple of decades, skepticism is an understandable response. The Fitzpatrick investigation, the Mueller investigation, the SCOTUS Interuptus of the 2000 presidential vote count, the endless stream of mass shootings and killings and many other similar events have diminished Americans' faith in our system and institutions. Consider how slowly the Department of Justice is moving against the instigators and planners of the January 6th insurrection. Very few of those elites have been questioned let alone charged.

I do agree with you that the upcoming mini-series will be must-watch TV. More importantly, I agree with Rep. Raskin that the testimony and evidence will blow the roof off the House. I'm hopeful that these presentations will elucidate to the world how Trump's dangerous criminality threatens American democracy. I'm hopeful their exposition will influence a majority of Americans' opinions about the seriousness of our fragile moment in history.

Yet I also understand the cynicism that permeates our society and that is what I think was behind the OP. Life ain't a Hollywood movie and too often, the bad guys win. Let's hope this isn't one of those films.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. Tell me what the difference is between this

Given many of the events these past couple of decades, skepticism is an understandable response. The Fitzpatrick investigation, the Mueller investigation, the SCOTUS Interuptus of the 2000 presidential vote count

and now?

I'll spell it out based on the last, post-Watergate "investigations" (not including the 3rd governmental Branch's selection of Shrub, which was not an "investigation" ) and will add two earlier ones -

The Iran-Contra investigation

Years: 1985 - 1987
President: Ronald W. Reagan
Attorney General: Edwin Meese
Executive Branch Party: Republican
Legislative Branch Party: House (Democratic), Senate (Republican)

The Whitewater investigation

Years: 1992 - 1998
President: George H.W. Bush/William J. Clinton
Attorney General: William Barr/Janet Reno
Executive Branch Party: Republican/Democratic
Legislative Branch Party: House (Democratic/Republican), Senate (Democratic)

The Fitzpatrick investigation

Years: 2003 - 2005
President: George W. Bush
Attorney General: John Ashcroft
Executive Branch Party: Republican
Legislative Branch Party: House (Republican), Senate (Republican)

The Mueller investigation

Years: 2017 - 2019
President: Donald J. Trump
Attorney General: Jeff Sessions/William Barr
Executive Branch Party: Republican
Legislative Branch Party: House (Republican), Senate (Republican)

The January 6 investigation

Years: 2021 - 2022
President: Joseph R. Biden
Attorney General: Merrick Garland
Executive Branch Party: Democratic
Legislative Branch Party: House (Democratic), Senate (Democratic)

Does one see a "pattern" here (I bolded it as a hint)?

I.e., except for Whitewater, the principal "investigators" were appointed by Republican Presidents and overseen by Republican Attorney Generals and in the case of Whitewater, a 3-judge panel appointed Republican Ken Starr NOT Janet Reno, a Democrat.

This is going to be the first "post-Watergate" (non-Impeachment related) "Investigation" run entirely under the purview of a Democratic President and Congress.

So we really have no idea of whether the "precedent" that people reference continually here, about the disappointing outcomes from what were Republican-controlled investigations, will suddenly also happen with Democratic-controlled ones.

[bigtree]

48. think you responded to the wrong person

[jaxexpat]

33. If "hang mike pence" is all we have.........................

Someone please tell me this hasn't reduced to the freaking fraud we feared it could have been. the echo of Replugs' gloating will be deafening. And please start by telling me they'll lead with something of substance. " hang mike pence" is what exactly? Proof that the Trump administration was childish? They exemplified that 24/7 to the whole world. Case closed, but it's not a felony. Has anyone forgotten there was a criminal in the Whitehouse for 4 years? A criminal abetting the entire Republican party whose mutual goal was to entirely neuter any effectively of the legislative branch.

[moonscape]

4. Plus, she's a woman. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

6. "There ain't no tapes this time"

[rsdsharp]

12. Get back to me when White House tapes show up of

whatever Cassidy Hutchinson testifies to.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. That's why you need to watch.

We don't know what they are going to present.

I know it's de rigueur on DU to dismiss anything the Biden administration does but it's gotten to the point of being juvenile now.

[Kingofalldems]

24. Tiresome isn't it?

[BumRushDaShow]

27. All hat

and no cattle, which is why the fence posts keep getting moved.

[Delphinus]

7. Gosh,

I sure hope you are wrong. I so want people to wake up to the truth.

[Boomerproud]

8. People MUST wake up. It's about the survival of our freedom.

I personally don't think that statement is hyperbole. Agree or disagree but the whole truth must come out and the consequences must be severe for all the perpetrators.

[Delphinus]

10. It truly is.

I read the Washington Post piece today by Berstein and Woodward and Watergate. This seems so much worse and we don't really know the half of it. The CNN video of Riggleman and Cooper (I posted in another thread) was eye-opening and scary. If the collective we don't wake up, it really will be the end of democracy.

[Boomerproud]

13. I saw Woodward and Bernstein on Anderson Cooper with John Dean

and I have never seen Woodward so shaken and angry. He usually plays the part of apologist even for TFG.

[Novara]

29. It is WAY FUCKING WORSE than what Nixon did

Never in this country's history has a former president attempted to overthrow the legitimately elected president and government. NEVER. A former president has never committed sedition. Here's a reminder of what sedition is:

se·di·tion
/səˈdiSH(ə n/
noun
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

They used to hang people for sedition.

Nixon was an amatuer compared to the orange motherfucker. And it's all because the fucking babyman couldn't stand losing.

This is so much worse, and even more so because they're STILL trying. We've become so used to the concept of the insurrection that the power to shock us has dissipated. I hope the hearings bring back the shock.

[Rebl2]

19. Unfortunately true

I wish they could have had the hearings in April like they originally mentioned. People are on vacation, going to sporting events-all the summer stuff. People like us will watch, maybe a few rational republicans-is that an oxymoron? If the media talks about it enough, it may change a few minds. Who knows.

[paleotn]

23. Few if anyone actually watches the tee vee....

from June to September. Right.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. "I wish they could have had the hearings in April like they originally mentioned"

So Easter (which was April 17 this year, with a week lead-up to it), Passover, and Ramadan (both of the latter being solemn holidays that overlapped with Easter during the month of April) plus Spring Break, suddenly didn't exist?

April was not a good month for this.

People are going to watch or not watch. There are literally THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of programmed channels nowadays - local "free" OTA digital, cable, satellite, and streaming. The average person isn't deep into politics like the people who specifically choose to become a member of and post on a political discussion site.

So that means for those who DO watch - we/they need to pass the info onto our not-so-engaged family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

[panader0]

36. Plus, I think the committee has a lot more info and testimony now than April.

[BumRushDaShow]

43. They sure as hell do

which is apparently why the dates slipped. They seemed to get a fresh motherlode of stuff, having interviewed over 1000 people. Just the sheer number of individuals interviewed alone is probably unprecedented for a Congressional Committee.

[panader0]

11. I wonder if Hutchinson's many hours of testimony could be one of the reasons

why Meadows wasn't indicted. Perhaps the committee has enough dirt on Meadows from her?

[yellowdogintexas]

15. The only reason for DOJ to not indict: they have other plans for Meadows

After all, they really do not need a committee to do anything to go after someone

[towerbum]

17. Don't forget Mark'y has a lot of crap with Fanni' going on in GEORGIA!

[bringthePaine]

20. its SHOWTIME!

[Cracklin Charlie]

25. Is she/he related to the Governor of Arkansas?

Just wondering.

[calimary]

28. "SING, my angel of music!"

[Arazi]

31. Aaannnddd Republican oppo just moved into overdrive against Hutchinson

Her life is now going to be torn apart with this pre-show announcement.

Hope she’s ready for the storm

[FakeNoose]

34. I'll never forget John Dean's admission, "There's a cancer on the Presidency"

... because that man actually had a conscience. It took him a while to realize it, but he refused to lie and get himself deeper into the same shit that Nixon, Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and all the others were already caught up in. He knew they were screwed, and he realized that MORE LYING wouldn't get them unscrewed. Somehow the Repukes can never figure that out on their own.

But Dean was different because he had a smart and liberal (and understanding) wife Maureen who helped him see that he needed to tell the truth at the Watergate hearings. I'm watching the HBO mini-series "Gaslit" right now about Martha Mitchell, John Dean, and the Watergate hearings - and it's so great. It brings it all back now, after all these years.

[PJMcK]

40. Nixon was setting Dean up to be the fall guy

Dean was smart enough to realize his predicament and he went to the DOJ. His reward for blowing the whistle was that he was convicted and disbarred.

Yet Dean was a hero and Lawrence O'Donnell calls him the smartest man he has ever known.

[ZonkerHarris]

35. Future coffee boy

[LetMyPeopleVote]

37. Meet your likely star witness:

Link to tweet

[Stuart G]

41. Most Americans do not know who John Dean is, was, or why he is an important part of history.

or Oliver North or the others from Watergate...

many don't even know that.............. Nixon was impeached

[LetMyPeopleVote]

42. Harry Litman REVEALS identity of Secret Star Witness for Jan 6 Hearings

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

45. John Dean was more than just a witness, he was doing active criminal activity and he knew it

He was also the only one in the next whole WH with a conscience and became the whistle blower knowing full well he was going to jail.

[Deminpenn]

46. Watched parts 1 and 2 of the CNN documentary on Watergate last night

It's all first-hand accounts of Dean, Woodward, Bernstein, Leslie Stahl, Ben-Viste and several other of the committe members and prosecutors.

Dean really lays out just how corrupt Nixon and his WH staff were. It's much, much deeper than just the "Plumbers" and the break in. Nixon was out to get and hold power by any means necessary including siccing the federal government on "enemies" real or not.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

47. Yes, I watched every minute, really a cast of crooked characters, all of them. Power corrupts, eh?

[Deminpenn]

49. Nixon was every bit as brazen, maybe more, as Trump except Nixon

kept his corruption under wraps. Nixon's corruption was 100% for political ends while Trump's is 100% driven by his own narcissism. Ironic that two men with entirely different mental states, Nixon with massive insecurity and Trump with his overwhelming narcissism acted so similarly.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

50. Hear how this ex-aide could be a star witness against Trump

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

51. Cassidy HUTCHINSON will be the surprise witness at the Jan. 6 hearing tomorrow

Link to tweet